Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Saturday, July 26, 2014

A lesson in online debate

This Twitter exchange should help illustrate why the critics of Game are so hesitant to directly challenge any of the leading Game bloggers; despite their pretensions they know very well that they are overmatched. It's not even a little bit difficult to expose their inability to intellectually hold their own, let alone beat us, even when using the very limited medium of Twitter.

David Futrelle
I've written many times about @heartiste and @voxday. They're (accidentally) hilarious!

Vanilla Rose
@DavidFutrelle exposes the stupidity of the writing of @heartiste, @voxday, @rooshv and others.

Vox Day
Snarking and posturing != ripped to shreds. He's simply not in our league.

David Futrelle
Vox, you rip yourself to shreds every time you open your mouth or type words on a screen.

Vox Day
Irrelevant. Even if true, in that case, you're still not doing it. It doesn't support the claim.

David Futrelle
I'll take on any "dark enlightenment" bloggers (that's hard to say w/ a straight face) in a cat pic duel.

Vox Day
Why not take me on in an actual debate. An easy topic like: should women have voting rights?

David Futrelle
Yes, women should have voting rights, because they, like men, are human. I win the debate! The end. Thanks!

Vox Day
Sorry, David, you haven't won yet. Yes, you are human. Did you vote in the recent EU elections?

David Futrelle
No. I vote where I live, in the US.. So are you contending that no women live in the countries they vote in?

Vox Day
I'm demonstrating to you that merely being human grants no voting rights. Do you concur?

David Futrelle
There are a few basic requirements for having the right to vote besides being human but being male isn't one

David Futrelle
There is no reasonable reason to deny anyone the vote because of gender.

David Futrelle
... and that's preetty much the end of the argument, despite whatever spurious reason you come up with to deny women the vote. Debate over.

Vox Day
You're begging the question.

Of course, their cognitive disadvantage isn't the only reason they prefer to stay at a safe distance and snark and posture rather than attempt to directly engage and destroy our arguments in front of our supporters. Critics such as Futrelle and Scalzi are of low socio-sexual rank, which means that they have the usual gamma male's distaste for conflict that has a clear winner. The reason is that as long as they can avoid losing, they can still claim victory in their delusional gamma style.

Notice how Futrelle tries to immediately declare himself the winner. This is normal. It's all about the spin with gammas; substance is to be avoided to the greatest extent possible because the more of it there is, the harder it becomes to spin the selected narrative. They are undefeated in their own minds, victors in a long series of imaginary encounters. But even in a short, character-limited exchange such as this, I was able to show Futrelle's reasoning to be incorrect twice, so it is little wonder he does not dare risk a more in-depth encounter with me or one of the other men. The longer it went on, the more inconsistencies I would have been able to expose. Once he realized this, he promptly repeated his initial position and retreated.

This is why we are winning. This is why we will win. Our critics and our enemies have to run away from us every single time we enter a new arena. All we have to do to continue convincing men of the truth of our perspective is to avoid getting lazy, to keep developing and presenting refined ideas, and to remember that rhetoric is no substitute for dialectic. And every time there is a minor encounter of this sort, more people will see that there is no rational foundation for the feminized dogma our opponents are so ineptly defending.

I've always found this particular form of self-delusion interesting. It's like two guys playing racquetball and the self-identified pro striking the ball and declaring total victory while the object is still mid-flight. *bop* I win. There's no way you could have returned that, or any strike after. Game over.

It's like they're completely oblivious to the fourth wall being made of glass.

He states "there is no reasonable reason to deny". Implying that there must be unreasonable reasons. All of which you can just about guarantee he will assign to Vox's position. So whether they are true or not is irrelevant. It is his concept of unreasonable that matters.

Actually, when women see these debates, they choose the strong side. I don't think they always understand, or agree, but they instinctively know strong from weak, and generally choose strong. But then fall back into confusion without a steady stream of strength, which most men haven't been presenting them. Game is changing that, from what I am seeing. There is as much hope as there is time. Then again, as things are setting up, a break will be for the good.

Game isn't just a sexual struggle, it opens up much else in life. Men who begin to master game aren't willing to be helpless in other parts of their lives. That bites into the need, and want, of bigger government. Zoom!

"And every time there is a minor encounter of this sort, more people will see that there is no rational foundation for the feminized dogma our opponents are so ineptly defending. "

Ah Vox, you really just can't see it, can you?? You do more to fuel feminism then the most energetic feminist. It's not those who dress up as giant pink lady bits and dance in the streets that lure girls towards feminism, it's men like you. Trust me, the women with crocheted uteruses on their heads, actually scare us.

Do you ever ask yourself why I came here? Of course not, you've dismissed me as a cognitively impaired old woman, in spite of the fact that I'm neither. I came here to plead for two things, one, that you would lift men up, pour some sense of self worth into them, for goodness sakes. You guys are often so busy commiserating over your perceived victimhood, it becomes nothing but a celebration of male powerlessness.

And second, I wanted you to drop your rather myopic perception of women as simple two dimensional creatures, for a variety of reasons, because it's false and because I think there is beauty in the world that you are missing. There is nothing more depressing than watching somebody who has beauty repeatedly cast at his feet, but still refuses to see it. We're not all feminists, you know.

David Futrelle may not be right about anything, but he wins the debate before it's even started. More importantly, he wins the popularity contest, which is what shaping public opinion is all about. You don't win this game Vox, you're doomed to failure, because what you seek, you destroy.

You do more to fuel feminism then the most energetic feminist. It's not those who dress up as giant pink lady bits and dance in the streets that lure girls towards feminism, it's men like you.

Once more, GG demonstrates why men should never listen to female advice.

David Futrelle may not be right about anything, but he wins the debate before it's even started. More importantly, he wins the popularity contest, which is what shaping public opinion is all about. You don't win this game Vox, you're doomed to failure, because what you seek, you destroy.

Sure he does. That's why you're here blathering away again on this blog rather than his, despite the fact that everyone has made it clear you are not wanted here. As for the popularity contest, my traffic is considerably higher than his. As is my Alexa rank:

Vox and the host of manosphere bloggers don't pour self worth into men. Doing that is for girls. What these guys do is cause men to develop their own self-worth, pointing to the foundation needed for that self-worth. For men, there isn't a reasonable equivalent of telling all women they are beautiful without some basis for that assessment.

Vox, the fact that you keep going all rabid Chihuahua on me, is not evidence of the strength of your positions. The fact that you completely dismiss the value of my perceptions, is not evidence of your intelligence, either.

"That's why you're here blathering away again on this blog rather than his, despite the fact that everyone has made it clear you are not wanted here."

I actually do blather on his blog. He's very nice and quite amusing. And wrong about a number of things. As to why I am here, I happen to believe in game and believed in it long before I had the misfortune of encountering the manosphere. However, I really am an outlier, so I am not a good example of what's popular.

You don't win this game, I'm sorry. We never return to this magical time you guys seem to dream of. The best you can hope for is to help a few people create their own little piece of paradise. That's not such a bad thing, so take heart.

The tribalism that develops on these things is always interesting. Take GG as an example: here we have an entity who (1) disagrees with your favorite ideas, yet (2) is willing to endure verbal abuse in the repeated attempt to engage those ideas. That's exactly what you want. That's how change happens--by being able to engage and convince people like GG, who have the strength of character to go among those who dislike her/him, and still address the topics that you guys prefer.

GG could be a lot of things. He could be a gay man who is, ever-so-slightly, testing the heterosexual waters. She could be a gorgeous Women's Studies co-ed who is looking for a place to sharpen her debate skills. He could be a Unitarian Reverend trying to achieve harmony between the sexes. She could be a lonely, horny, mid-30s woman who doesn't find your nail-biting internet masculinity advice as anything resembling "masculine."

Which one s/he is, is irrelevant, because any of those people are your target audience, if you want to spread your message. People willing to interact with a message they don't like are few and far between--look at Mr. Futrelle, who is literally afraid of engaging you. His emotional issues might prevent him from ever being able to join your cause. Yet GG keeps engaging you, and you spend more time insulting her than you do trying to have a calm, rational dialogue about what makes your philosophy correct.

Ironically, what you come across most as is a group of women who recognizes her as belonging to a different social caste, so you'll never entertain her discussions about which lipstick is best. It's possible that being rude and clannish will eventually cause her to break down and sleep with one of you, but more likely, she's an exception to your rule, and might actually respond to a fair dialogue.

Ironically, what you come across most as is a group of women who recognizes her as belonging to a different social caste, so you'll never entertain her discussions about which lipstick is best. It's possible that being rude and clannish will eventually cause her to break down and sleep with one of you, but more likely, she's an exception to your rule, and might actually respond to a fair dialogue.

You have no idea what you're talking about. I know exactly who GG is, including her real name. She is an older married woman who is here to defend Team Woman and she is not very intelligent. She is not capable of rational discourse or responding to a fair dialogue. She has already been banned from Vox Popoli because she is a moron who never lets her ignorance stop her from voicing an incoherent opinion.

I only permit her to comment here because she is a living, breathing example of a number of Roissy's maxims in action. I am not seeking to convince her of anything. I'm certainly not interested in having adulterous sex with the woman, nor, I think, is anyone else.

Oh, come on; women vote for the same small spread of corporate tools that men vote for. There are just as many hipster douches in Portlandia voting for Obama's bullshit as there are women doing the same. And wait'll Killary runs in 2016--you'll see legions of fawning men lining up to pledge her undying loyalty before she has time to even finish announcing her candidacy.

Before women got the vote, men managed to vote in Woodrow Wilson all by themselves, and ensure an end to the U.S. having effective independence. Men managed to sell Andrew Jackson out to the Bank all on their own, ensuring that their grandchildren would be left poor. Rich men were the ones who fostered and popularized their little princesses' suffragette parties, using token social causes to cover up the next decade's economic bubble. What extra bad could women have done that men already hadn't done by themselves before 1920?

The answer is, "Not very much." Reconstruction, anti-German propaganda, central bank interventionist movements, and wartime industrial takeover had already birthed the socialist police state. All giving the vote to women did is create an appearance of "openness" about the monster that grew into America 2014.

"She is an older married woman who is here to defend Team Woman and she is not very intelligent. She is not capable of rational discourse or responding to a fair dialogue. She has already been banned from Vox Popoli because she is a moron who never lets her ignorance stop her from voicing an incoherent opinion."

Fascinating Vox, because I happen to dislike the majority of women and I can't ever recall trying to defend "team woman," a team I'm not often on. I'm also highly intelligent, quite capable of rational discourse, and seldom, if ever, give an incoherent opinion. It is possible however, that I do speak over your head.

I have to laugh, no one has ever called me a moron in my entire life, simply because it's more than obvious that I am not one. Last year, for the first time ever, I got called a moron twice in the same day, once by a genuinely mentally retarded woman and once by Vox Day. Synchronicity, go figure.

Since VD cannot handle even the gentlest words from a mere woman and will no doubt kick me out, I'm insanitybytes2 at wordpress, should anybody wish to know.

Can't argue against men having screwed a lot of things up all along, and I agree that without foolish men we wouldn't even have feminism. But to say that giving women the vote didn't escalate the rate of decay and increase the stupidity factor in the political environment is a bit of a stretch. Do you really believe that if women never started voting we would have even had a sexual revolution in the 60s? And would politicians really have voted to start supporting baby momas without having women voters to cater to? What about all those domestic violence laws and abortion? VAWA?

Sorry, I find it a quite a stretch to say that the goliath of a government we have now would be this monstrous were it not for the female vote to cater to and the feminist propaganda machine to tell them what they want.

I too think we were headed for a police state early on, only I think the 1930s was the crucial pivot, but I think with male headed families and government there was a better chance of turning it around. And even if it never got turned around then at least it wouldn't have been the policed state gynocracy we have now.

The powerful bloodlines who used that as a social distraction are the same ones who did the other stuff. If we were susceptible to it then, and are still susceptible to it now, I'm not sure there's anything in-between that they couldn't've accomplished without the female vote.

Adding women to the rolls didn't change anything substantive. Same parties, same companies, same types of people, same bullshit. Elites allow regular "social revolutions" (whether sexual or otherwise) to convince people that things are changing, in order to distract attention from increasing tax theft and endless police states/war. Those social revolutions have positive and negative aspects, about which we can argue for a long time, but more important than that is that the "improving domestic attitudes" movement is just a smokescreen for someone taking your money.

Women like to be robbed as much as men do. These divisive social issues keep people focused on one another for being stupid, while behind the curtain, a small group of inbred people is more than happy that we're arguing about those issues instead of ending the theft. Many feminists do have a lot wrong with their philosophy, but they're prisoners, like us, of the deep government. The nobler cause here may be to focus on the masterminds, rather than pointing out stupid things feminists do.

When I tell feminists the opposite of that argument--e.g., asking them to consider whether their access to free birth control is more important and pressing an issue than endless war/police state--they accuse me of "mansplaining" and return to dutifully complaining about men.

It's a nice theory you guys have here, that by gradually educating people, you might reinstate a noble patriarchy. Even if you are able to convince people that you are right, though--and there are many who will never be convinced--it won't be that many years from now before homosexual couples are able to conceive using taxpayer-funded genetic selection pods. Your entire model of male/female will collapse. If you want to protect what you say you want to protect, you don't have the time to let the Fed keep mandating antilife research.

There's a word for incoherently speaking over others' heads. It's called being high. Cannabis use can also lead to short term memory loss...like forgetting what you've said in a prior comment and contradicting a day, an hour, or 5 minutes later.

"...I happen to dislike the majority of women and I can't ever recall trying to defend "team woman," a team I'm not often on."

How often you're on team woman is irrelevant if you'e gonna continue taking it personally every time a man expresses the same dislike of it that you just did, GG. If that sentence seems long to you, try this one- You're lying again.

Futrelle lost, I sensed or maybe read too closely, his fear. Fear of reality and the section where he clearly lost his footing to Vox, see mid section. I admit to not caring for DF, I've read him here/ there and dont care for his work.

Overall, my fave comment was "and to remember that rhetoric is no substitute for dialectic. And every time there is a minor encounter of this sort, more people will see that there is no rational foundation for the feminized dogma our opponents are so ineptly defending."

Futrelle desperately has to keep the illusion that he is on the winning side. If you want to have fun go on to his or Scalzi's site troll as one of them, bemoan how "they" are winning, and sit back and watch the fun. The weird thing about Futrelle's site is, unless he's posting about cats, half of the commenters seem to ignore the basis of his posts and go off on weird tangents that have nothing to do with anything he's writing. Really a bunch of weird people.

"David FutrelleThere is no reasonable reason to deny anyone the vote because of gender."

Well, an unreasonable reason is a reason, and is therefore reasonable. Women are softer and rounder than men, and usually smell nicer, and that is a reason, whether reasonable or unreasonable, therefore it is a reason, which is in itself reasonable. Therefore women should not be allowed to vote.

Women spend something like 80% of consumer spending. I'd say they like getting robbed even more than men and are much easier to mislead (hence the desire for the elites to bring them to the forefront). I agree with most of what you say, but I believe that woman played a much larger role than you think.

If you want to protect what you say you want to protect, you don't have the time to let the Fed keep mandating antilife research.

I agree, but how do we stop them? They already have all the cards in their favor. There is no one to vote for that would, or could, oppose them. They have most of the fire power, and most people are indoctrinated to except an all powerful gyno-centered government that does everything for them (as long as they belong to the right group). I'm all ears for a solution.

The only thing I can see that will make a change is a massive economic collapse. I only see three ways this could happen, foreign invasion, world shaking catastrophe, or keep spending money we don't have on things we can't afford. If and when this happens feminism will undoubtedly disappear, but the once strong moral fiber that it replaced won't necessarily return with it's demise. It will not be a nice place for women if and when this happens, but then it wouldn't be a nice place for most people period.

Re: women playing a larger role, sure, they do, but they were granted that power to play a larger role by men, so the origins of this problem must lie with men. Remove the female vote in this population, and the men would immediately give it right back to them. We must needs repair the foundation first, for whatever reforms you have in mind. And given the time period that this began--during the Great War--I'd say it's fairly obvious that a foreign policy of interventionist meddling is linked to all the domestic ills you identify. You need to wean men off that if you want to breed better future policies.

As far as solutions go, well, goodness me, there's certainly no legal way to stop "them." What, I wonder, did all the mighty alpha males do in times past? They probably discussed the issue on papyrus forums until things in the outside world worked themselves out somehow.

"Re: women playing a larger role, sure, they do, but they were granted that power to play a larger role by men, so the origins of this problem must lie with men. Remove the female vote in this population, and the men would immediately give it right back to them."

Let me give this a try. Of course, I have to put some limits on it, as I have no intention or belief that women should have the vote everywhere, that would be for the people of everywhere to decide.

Should women have the vote in the USA. I would contend that yes, they should, for the simple reason that it works. (for the past century anyway). If it stops working, then we will need to decide again if (women,men,18 yr olds, landowners only, taxpayers only, etc) should be the ones voting.

I really shouldn't have read Heinlein when I was 12 should I? He obviously had way to much influence on me!

I'd say he didn't have enough influence, Tim. He certainly didn't have too much influence. Sic.

Oh, and Iowahine, Adam was the strongest, mightiest man ever, made directly in God's image, siring way more kids than you, and living much longer and stronger than you will. How's he an "under-male"? And if he was under, who was he under? The Philistines?

I think the voting habits of the exploding "ethnic" population is a far more serious problem than women voting. If I had my way, the vote would be limited only to people who pay income tax, which would eliminate a significant number of women anyways.

Dear Vox, you are a delusional, pompous ass. It's all the more hilarious that this post of yours sounds like that of a petulant child. How can you not see it? You come off as a silly bird with his puffed up chest thinking he is better than he is. You did not bother to debate the actual "issue" of why women should not vote, you were only debating ridiculous technicalities... Where are your actual logical points as to why they should not? You did not bother bringing them up, because there are no actual valid points as to why women should not vote. Who raised you?? All you "white knights" need to kindly leave the rest of the populace in peace and retreat to a private island where we don't need to worry about you and your senseless "debates". You men love each other so much, go live there without women and suck each other off.

Vox was using a very logical means of making a point; a method of which you may have heard before--the Socratic method. When you encounter an internally-inconsistent viewpoint, or when you just want to better understand someone's argument, you ask questions to help better understand their position. It helps both contributors to a debate know what they each believe, and the questioning process may reveal logical flaws in one party's viewpoint.

Mr. Futrelle became upset when he realized where the E.U. question would lead, because his subconscious mind perceived that, if "being human" was not really the only qualification for voting, he would have to justify his position in a much more complex way than he was able to. It's kind of like finding a child standing next to a broken window, and asking, "Is that a rock in your hand?" The child may want to hide the rock behind her/his back, realizing that admitting the existence and possession of the rock will make it more likely that s/he broke the window.

If Futrelle had answered the question rather than retreating to the safety of bland platitudes, Vox could have asked next about convicted felons, or two-year-olds, or people openly selling their votes, or people who held multiple citizenships solely for the purpose of voting. Futrelle would have realized that, as in the case of capitalism, the issuance of "voting rights" absolutely depends on a number of complex, expensive, life-or-death variables.

Because those variables can only be provisioned in certain ways, or (perhaps) by certain people, it's a legitimate way to tease out the argument that only certain kinds of "contributors" to society should be allowed to vote on matters of political importance. Futrelle could have had that argument legitimately with Vox, and gotten to the level of detail where he was claiming that non-felon, non-mentally-incapacitated adult women were equally worthy of the vote as compared to non-felon, non-mentally-incapacitated adult men. However, he did not. Deep down, perhaps he suspected that he wouldn't be able to economically justify the position he wanted to maintain, or perhaps he really doesn't think of highly as women as he claims to. Maybe he was just lazy and angry. Either way, he ignored a perfectly valid question about voting rights--the very subject of the debate itself--and quit, using anger and platitudes to cover his concession. Even were his position the correct one, he did an abysmal job representing it.

Amazing post. Thanks for nice information. JoyCardBD is a virtual card for buying online and payment you bill by online where supported MasterCard. JoyCard is the virtual credit card in bangladesh but our all activates and maintenance from USA. You all information is safe and secure we use premium site locker secure and many other security.

Engaging in traditional payment systems sometimes causes the client to pay extra charges called transaction fees. This adds on the total amount of the in-voice, sometimes without the client's knowledge. Transaction fees, according to a financial dictionary, are charges that a dealer assesses on a client service of filling an order.